Small Project Design

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Small Project Practitioners and Center for Civic Leadership .
-------------------------------------------

I am exploring the potential of establishing a national database of Permit Streamlining best practices.  With building and planning review staff cuts of up to 80% in cities large and small, the challenge is to conduct permit reviews that do not compromise protection of public safety, yet are more timely, efficient and transparent.   

Architects are in an excellent position to help their local jurisdiction find and vet streamlining methods that are locally appropriate.  The result when successful is a 'win win'.  The community, profession and city government all benefit from stimulated economic development, good jobs, and higher performing buildings.

• Are the jurisdictions you work in engaged in permit streamlining efforts?  
• Would a database of examples of what is being done elsewhere, with pros and cons, contact information etc be useful to you in your community?  

Comments and suggestions are welcome.  

-------------------------------------------
Michael Malinowski AIA
AIA Director - California Region
Applied Architecture, Inc.
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------

Michael,

Sharing information on best practices through your proposed "Permit Streamlining National Database" has real merit. That said, despite the use of model codes and standards (e.g. IBC, NFPA), code enforcement has intentionally be structured in the US to be administered on a state and local level by people who mostly resist external intervention or ideas. 

I would think that one or more of the various national organizations that serve the building and code enforcement sector, such as the AIA, ICC, NHBA, would be best positioned to lead a push for permit streamlining and sharing of best practices. Unless it was already your plan, you may want to reach out to these stakeholder organizations to see what, if any, permit streamlining campaigns they have explored or initiated.

Good luck with you initiative should you decide to move ahead!

-------------------------------------------
Ronald Weston AIA, LEED AP
Senior Director - Architecture
PS&S
Warren, NJ
-------------------------------------------

Various cities in the state of AZ are allowing architects to provide plan review on their projects. I'm not sure if there is a project size limit. The architects have to go thru the ICBO plan review class and pass the exam. You can then do plan review and the city will issue the permit. The cities still collect permit fees. It is now approved in Tucson AZ and the cities of Phoenix and Mesa are looking into allowing it. Contact AIA AZ for more detailed information.

-------------------------------------------
Ronald Peters AIA
President
HistoricStreetscapes PLLC
Mesa AZ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-28-2012 10:14
From: Ronald Weston
Subject: Permit Streamlining National Database: is there a need for this resource?


Michael,

Sharing information on best practices through your proposed "Permit Streamlining National Database" has real merit. That said, despite the use of model codes and standards (e.g. IBC, NFPA), code enforcement has intentionally be structured in the US to be administered on a state and local level by people who mostly resist external intervention or ideas. 

I would think that one or more of the various national organizations that serve the building and code enforcement sector, such as the AIA, ICC, NHBA, would be best positioned to lead a push for permit streamlining and sharing of best practices. Unless it was already your plan, you may want to reach out to these stakeholder organizations to see what, if any, permit streamlining campaigns they have explored or initiated.

Good luck with you initiative should you decide to move ahead!

-------------------------------------------
Ronald Weston AIA, LEED AP
Senior Director - Architecture
PS&S
Warren, NJ
-------------------------------------------

Thanks for the feedback.  There currently no national database of permit streamlining best practices.  

I believe in this vacuum there is an opportunity for the AIA to be a leader in this conversation.  We could act as a catalyst in bringing together other national entities that are stakeholders, consultants, and/or have a vested interest in this topic.  I am also interested in the potential of the AIA in fostering partnering relationships between local AIA members and local code officials by vetting streamlining approaches best suited to local conditions and practice.  

-------------------------------------------
Michael Malinowski AIA
AIA Director - California Region
Applied Architecture, Inc.
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-29-2012 12:12
From: Ronald Peters
Subject: Permit Streamlining National Database: is there a need for this resource?

Various cities in the state of AZ are allowing architects to provide plan review on their projects. I'm not sure if there is a project size limit. The architects have to go thru the ICBO plan review class and pass the exam. You can then do plan review and the city will issue the permit. The cities still collect permit fees. It is now approved in Tucson AZ and the cities of Phoenix and Mesa are looking into allowing it. Contact AIA AZ for more detailed information.

-------------------------------------------
Ronald Peters AIA
President
HistoricStreetscapes PLLC
Mesa AZ
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
James D. Smith, AIA
Principal/owner
James Douglas Smith, AIA, Inc. Architect
[Crown Point, Indiana
-------------------------------------------
The City of Chicago has size limited self certification of plans. The architect must take a self certification training course. Below is a link to the City building department page on certification and below that the opening paragraph of the page. I don't do enough work in Chicago to justify taking the course and the few projects I do don't fit the limited categories, but it is great if your work falls into the list. The process in the city has been streamlined over the years but is still up there with having root canal work.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/bldgs/supp_info/an_overview_of_theself-certificationprogram.html

The Self-Certification Permit Program simplifies the building permit process for eligible residential, business and mercantile projects where the Architect of Record takes full responsibility for code compliance. The DOB plan reviews are eliminated by allowing the Professional of Record to certify that the permit drawings comply with the Chicago Building Code. The Professional of Record must have prepared and sealed the permit drawings, completed DOB's Self-Certification Training Class, and hold an active Self-Certification registration.




Original Message:
Sent: 05-30-2012 15:51
From: Michael Malinowski
Subject: Permit Streamlining National Database: is there a need for this resource?

Thanks for the feedback.  There currently no national database of permit streamlining best practices.  

I believe in this vacuum there is an opportunity for the AIA to be a leader in this conversation.  We could act as a catalyst in bringing together other national entities that are stakeholders, consultants, and/or have a vested interest in this topic.  I am also interested in the potential of the AIA in fostering partnering relationships between local AIA members and local code officials by vetting streamlining approaches best suited to local conditions and practice.  

-------------------------------------------
Michael Malinowski AIA
AIA Director - California Region
Applied Architecture, Inc.
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-29-2012 12:12
From: Ronald Peters
Subject: Permit Streamlining National Database: is there a need for this resource?

Various cities in the state of AZ are allowing architects to provide plan review on their projects. I'm not sure if there is a project size limit. The architects have to go thru the ICBO plan review class and pass the exam. You can then do plan review and the city will issue the permit. The cities still collect permit fees. It is now approved in Tucson AZ and the cities of Phoenix and Mesa are looking into allowing it. Contact AIA AZ for more detailed information.

-------------------------------------------
Ronald Peters AIA
President
HistoricStreetscapes PLLC
Mesa AZ
-------------------------------------------

I spilt my work between the UK as an RIBA member and here.  The UK has a system run by the government called the 'Planning Portal,' which is an open website where you can upload planning applications, complete standardized PDF forms, and pay fees which are accepted by every county and local planning jurisdiction.  This really has streamlined the process and allows an architect in London to submit an application in Newcastle quickly and easily.  

I suppose that it would have to be on a state-by-state basis here because of licensure, and stamping of drawings on the other end by building officials would become 'digital,'  but the benefits are huge.  Definitely something for the AIACC to champion.

-------------------------------------------
John Onken Intl. Assoc. AIA RIBA
Director
John Onken Architects Limited
Menlo Park CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-30-2012 15:51
From: Michael Malinowski
Subject: Permit Streamlining National Database: is there a need for this resource?

Thanks for the feedback.  There currently no national database of permit streamlining best practices.  

I believe in this vacuum there is an opportunity for the AIA to be a leader in this conversation.  We could act as a catalyst in bringing together other national entities that are stakeholders, consultants, and/or have a vested interest in this topic.  I am also interested in the potential of the AIA in fostering partnering relationships between local AIA members and local code officials by vetting streamlining approaches best suited to local conditions and practice.  

-------------------------------------------
Michael Malinowski AIA
AIA Director - California Region
Applied Architecture, Inc.
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-29-2012 12:12
From: Ronald Peters
Subject: Permit Streamlining National Database: is there a need for this resource?

Various cities in the state of AZ are allowing architects to provide plan review on their projects. I'm not sure if there is a project size limit. The architects have to go thru the ICBO plan review class and pass the exam. You can then do plan review and the city will issue the permit. The cities still collect permit fees. It is now approved in Tucson AZ and the cities of Phoenix and Mesa are looking into allowing it. Contact AIA AZ for more detailed information.

-------------------------------------------
Ronald Peters AIA
President
HistoricStreetscapes PLLC
Mesa AZ
-------------------------------------------

I can only warn other jurisdictions of NOT doing what the City of Atlanta has done. For several years they have offered Architects the choice of signing and stamping a RAAC form which allows residential projects to bypass building review. I had two lawyers review this RAAC form and they told me not to sign it. Essentially, the signer takes all responsibility away from the City as the signer becomes their own plan reviewer, yet the City can interpret the code in any way they see fit. If an inspector disagrees with an installation in the field, the owner must accept removing said construction at their own expense and the Architect is now responsible for "approving" said construction. In theory, the Code is the Code, but local officials interpret the Code in slightly different ways. When the City's own reviewers pass a project, then the City is responsible for making a "mistake" between the field inspector and plan reviewer's interpretations of the Code. The RAAC form allows the Architect to throw themselves under the bus for free. Atlanta has a long history of being so chaotic that a new job title has emerged, Expeditor (aka drawing babysitter). These people can make more per hour than Architects and they always ask me to sign the RAAC form, but never offer me anything in exchange for eliminating a huge part of their job. Everyone has this attitude that, "If you stand behind your work, then why won't you sign the form?" There is value for the Expeditor that doesn't have to deal with building review, but we're expected to do this for free? 

Now combine this with the fact that the City of Atlanta recently hired plan reviewers that don't understand basic aspects of the code, thus making one wonder who the field inspectors are as well. In 14 years, I've never had drawings rejected by Atlanta. Recently, I've received comments about brick veneer not complying with sections of the IRC that pertain to load bearing foundation walls, factory made fireplaces not complying with sections pertaining to masonry fireplaces, and my favorite was a 20 minute argument with a reviewer who rejected my project because a stair did not have a guardrail protecting the walking surface from a planter that was 30" TALLER than the walking surface. Yes, you read that right, we weren't arguing over a 30" drop from a walking surface, it was an item more than 30" above the adjacent walking surface and they refused to budge. I'm glad I didn't sign a RAAC form. I'm not getting sued by an angry owner because I reviewed my own project and we have people employed at the City who don't understand the basics about the Code.

The adjacent City of Decatur jurisdiction has dealt with this issue by outsourcing plan review and field inspection to a Corporate firm that provides this service across the country. The left side of me disagrees with this, but once we all got used to each other, the consistency and professionalism has been much better to deal with. It's important for the reviewer and the inspector to be on the same page. 

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

In Ohio, the building officials have no liability in the plan review process.
Meaning, if they miss something, and the building is built exactly to the plans, The BO can not be held responsible for fixing it, nor can he/she be held liable. 
Plans are stamped "Reviewed to 20?? OBC or IBC" and are not stamped "Approved" any more.

Any structure other than 1-2- or 3-Family Dwellings and purely Agricultural structures require the seal of a design professional and they are held liable.
The building official nor the governmental agency can not be sued.



-------------------------------------------
D. Cook AIA
Tipp City OH
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-28-2012 10:16
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: Permit Streamlining National Database: is there a need for this resource?


I can only warn other jurisdictions of NOT doing what the City of Atlanta has done. For several years they have offered Architects the choice of signing and stamping a RAAC form which allows residential projects to bypass building review. I had two lawyers review this RAAC form and they told me not to sign it. Essentially, the signer takes all responsibility away from the City as the signer becomes their own plan reviewer, yet the City can interpret the code in any way they see fit. If an inspector disagrees with an installation in the field, the owner must accept removing said construction at their own expense and the Architect is now responsible for "approving" said construction. In theory, the Code is the Code, but local officials interpret the Code in slightly different ways. When the City's own reviewers pass a project, then the City is responsible for making a "mistake" between the field inspector and plan reviewer's interpretations of the Code. The RAAC form allows the Architect to throw themselves under the bus for free. Atlanta has a long history of being so chaotic that a new job title has emerged, Expeditor (aka drawing babysitter). These people can make more per hour than Architects and they always ask me to sign the RAAC form, but never offer me anything in exchange for eliminating a huge part of their job. Everyone has this attitude that, "If you stand behind your work, then why won't you sign the form?" There is value for the Expeditor that doesn't have to deal with building review, but we're expected to do this for free? 

Now combine this with the fact that the City of Atlanta recently hired plan reviewers that don't understand basic aspects of the code, thus making one wonder who the field inspectors are as well. In 14 years, I've never had drawings rejected by Atlanta. Recently, I've received comments about brick veneer not complying with sections of the IRC that pertain to load bearing foundation walls, factory made fireplaces not complying with sections pertaining to masonry fireplaces, and my favorite was a 20 minute argument with a reviewer who rejected my project because a stair did not have a guardrail protecting the walking surface from a planter that was 30" TALLER than the walking surface. Yes, you read that right, we weren't arguing over a 30" drop from a walking surface, it was an item more than 30" above the adjacent walking surface and they refused to budge. I'm glad I didn't sign a RAAC form. I'm not getting sued by an angry owner because I reviewed my own project and we have people employed at the City who don't understand the basics about the Code.

The adjacent City of Decatur jurisdiction has dealt with this issue by outsourcing plan review and field inspection to a Corporate firm that provides this service across the country. The left side of me disagrees with this, but once we all got used to each other, the consistency and professionalism has been much better to deal with. It's important for the reviewer and the inspector to be on the same page. 

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Technology in Architectural Practice and Small Project Practitioners .
-------------------------------------------

Permit streamlining is a valuable discussion topic.  Additionally, there is the issue of "electronic building permit documents".  We are finding that many local jurisdictions are going down separate non-coordinated paths in their pursuit to permit electronic documents as part of the building permit or planning permit application process.

Electronic document submissions offer the opportunity for greater efficiency for the permit agencies.  The problem is that no single uniform electronic document format yet exists and many jurisdictions are spending scarce funds to research, create and adopt an electronic documents system.

We all know how to submit paper documents that are well understood by all of the jurisdictions across the country.  There is not a great deal of difference in the documentation requirements between local jurisdictions.  The differences that do exist are fairly easy to address prior to submittal.  

Electronic documents may pose a much greater hurdle if jurisdictions do not have a common way to communicate electronically in-house and with the firms that submit their documents in a format that can be reviewed and "electronically red-lined" by the permit agency.

I believe there are at least two major software providers who currently play a role in the area of electronic document sharing.  But getting local jurisdictions to accept one or both of these platforms seems to be difficult.  Instead, jurisdictions seem to be going their separate ways in their search for the electronic document holy grail.

Can we not find a few common formats and platforms that easily communicate between platforms?  The answer should be yes.

Local, State and National professional groups, trade organizations, and public jurisdictions need to quickly find a common way to allow electronic documents to be universally accepted and shared.

Without a common and limited number of electronic document submission-systems, it is likely that dozens of competing systems will surface and many will try to create a "locked" system that will not "talk" with their competition.  Some platforms will be adopted and used,only to have that platform later disappear from the market.  We have seen this situation happen all too frequently with CAD and other construction industry-related software programs.  

We can learn from the past and help to avoid those mistakes from infecting the discussion and implementation of a viable electronic-document submission system.   

If your jurisdiction currently allows electronic document submissions for planning and construction permits, we would like to know some of the details.  The AIA-Oregon Legislative Affairs Committee is currently looking at possible ways to have the issue addressed at the State legislative level.

Thanks for sharing info related to electronic documents.

Richard Bryant, AIA

altavistadesign1@gmail.com

  
      
-------------------------------------------
Richard Bryant AIA
Principal
Alta Vista Design Architecture & Planning LLC
Corvallis OR
-------------------------------------------

Do you mean plan review in house? How can plan review of our own projects pick up something we may have missed? It's easy to over look something when one is very close to the source of the work. How do you address this in order to met the life safety design standards?

-------------------------------------------
Christina Schessler AIA
McKinley & Associates, Inc.
Wheeling WV
-------------------------------------------